The ROCK AND A HARD PLACE fallacy

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven]


We should not digress into a debate on religious artifacts, but there are many artifacts, even whole walls that match the time and scripture of kings and different happenings in the bible.

Evidence would take away the need for faith.
viewtopic.php?t=28782

Of course!
I would call foul, because thats the cheapest oldest stage trick cliche ever!

Its always the same. For example: The audience sees a stage magician entering a box, and after a little wile "the magician" leaves the box transformed into a sweet PENGUIN !
OF COURSE, NO ONE EVER sees the man actually transform into this penguin, even though THAT WOULD BE THE MOST INTERESTING PART TO WATCH!

I wonder why thats so? Awww-it couldnt be all a trick, could it?

But if James Randy, Richard Dawkins and Richard Carrier had been invited to enter stage to look into the box while the magician transforms AND THEY WOULD SWEAR THEY SAW THE MAN WONDROUSLY TRANSFORM INTO A POLAR BIRD, things would be different.

Even more if they wrote it down in their books, they all would describe the same astonishing experience in detail, trying to find explanations and some time would pass without the trio calling it all out as conspirative psychological experiment on people.

That is a challenge I agree, a spectacular event takes place 2,000 years ago and people strive to create some written record of it, what else could they do? I don't think it would materially help at all if their account said something like "and the room glowed and the dead body turned to smoke and filled the room, then the smoke cleared and our Lord was standing there looking at me" (for example), are you really saying you'd believe it more? like you'd react "Oh OK, then yes, that makes more sense, I believe it now"?

No, nothing could have been written beyond what was written that could convince a skeptic.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27092&start=480

I created a new fallacy thar verily needs to be outcalled.

I name it the ROCK AND HARD PLACE FALLACY.

The pressing for hard evidence in religious claims gets normally dodged by believers in one of two extremely paradox ways.

Either they say that hard evidence is not given, for that would ruin free will and ruin the need for faith 'cause everyone and his aunt Petunia would instantly turn into hardcore believer.

Or they say that no matter the evidence, sceptics would never but never turn into believers.

Both generalized claims I call the above fallacy.

Both claims have not only logical errors amass, they also aim to dodge the question for hard evidence and swapping the theme from evidence to how can people make to believe.

Am I right, that it is a important to outcall this fallacy ?

[We_Are_VENOM]

I disagree partly. Of course believers will normally not bring themselves willingly into a position where they have to retreat to this fallacy.
But it can easily happen that sceptics or people willing to convert, and yes, even other believers put them in the situatuon without even knowing about environments like this forum.

Example: Mormon Missionarys lay out the story of the Golden Plates.(They do this at their first visit. I had them in my home.)
There is a good possibility people will ask them why Joseph Smith had to give back the Golden Plates.

"Wouldnt it be beautiful if we had them on display for everyone to see? Scientists would eat their hearts out! So where are the Golden Plates now?"

I am sure the elders come prepared for be confronted with such a question with the One Fits All answer:
"If we had the Golden Plates, everyone would be LDS. No need for faith and no free will. And that would be against gods will and plan."

I do not agree with this answer. It is illogical, and that is the fallacy I am referring.

Well, I can certainly see your point...but my thing is; we have to be careful with that one...because, while it may seem fallacious to you...it may actually be true.

Case point: My mom has this thing where she stubbornly refuses to use her credit/debit cards to make purchases.

She will only use them on extenuating circumstances.

She carries cash around her when she is out, and usually just enough cash she needs to purchase whatever she needs to purchase.

She and I have had enough discussions about this, as I point out to her the conveniences of the plastic relative to cash.

But she ain't trying to hear me...she is stuck in her ways.

Now, I said that to say...imagine there is a scenario which involves her (whatever situation it is), where a third party is tempted to ask "Well, why didn't she just use her card?".

Answer: Well, because using her card wasn't part of her plan(s).

Now, that answer is a similar to the one the LDS would give you as it pertains to the Golden Plates...and similar to the one believers typically use...a fancy pancy way of saying "we don't just don't know".

That answer may not be acceptable to you, but keep in mind, it isn't as if they are reaching with such an answer.

The Bible is clear that God requires faith...God LOVES faith...and one of the the best examples of this is when Jesus said to doubting Thomas.

"You seen, therefore you believe; blessed are those who have no seen, and still believe" (John 20:28-29).

If I recall, it was you who brought up Paul and his road to Damascus experience (in another conversation).

Jesus' point was (ibid); as good as we think Paul's experience/conversion was, we are still more blessed than Paul was, because we have no such experience, and we STILL believe.

Didn't mean to get too preachy, but trying to drive home to point.

For one: The Golden Plates found would rather be an anachronism than a reason for everyone to become mormon, much less LDS.
But LDS of course likes to present itself as the only mormon church.

I got beef with the LDS.

Now, I agree there are questions in belief, that are less obvious and come less often.

Someone inquiring about "actual witnesses for the resurrection" is really best served in an environment like this forum.
viewtopic.php?t=27092

But christians have to watch out, out there too to be possibly prepared for that dangerous question!

I like this "rock and a hard place" thingy.

While I am hesitant to call it a fallacy, there is some merit to it as just simply being in a compromising situation, which is what it means in general...but even believers can find ourselves in these situations.

Here is one that I noticed on my end...I am about to give two scenarios, watch this..

*I present the Gospels to a person who knows nothing about it, with the suggestion that after he reads them, he believes what he reads*.

The person reads it, and comes back...

Scenario 1

Person: I read those four books as you suggested.

Me: That's what's up. Now, do you believe?

Person: Nawww man. I don't think I can get down with it.

Me: Why?

Person: Because, after reading them..I noticed that three of the four are too similar. It is almost as if there is some plagiarizing stuff going on there. I can't rock with plagiarism.

*Person walks away*

Scenario 2:

The person reads it, and comes back...

Person: I read those four books as you suggested.

Me: That's what's up. Now, do you believe?

Person: Nawww man. I don't think I can get down with it.

Me: Why?

Person: Because after reading them, I noticed that there are too many differences. Almost seem as if the accounts are all contradictory. I can't rock with contradictory stuff.

*Person walks away*

So, on one hand, it is rejected because they are too similar.

On the other hand, it is rejected because they are too different.

So, the believer is stuck between a rock and a hard place.



--------

And on another note (off topic)..

There was this now defunct website called "Best Gore", which featured a lot of pictures and videos of murders, death, gore, etc.

It gave you a steady dose of some of the most harsh realities of the evil world that we live in.

And below every picture/video, members of the website could make comments.

Anyway, there was one picture of an unfortunate victim of a homicide.

The dude had his head smashed with a big boulder/rock.

The rock laid at rest on the man's smashed head.

Someone left a comment which stated..

"This dude is stuck between a rock and a dead place".

The comment is/was so funny and relevant, that I would laugh at the comment..even if I was the victim!!!

[The Nice Centurion]

I disagree partly. Of course believers will normally not bring themselves willingly into a position where they have to retreat to this fallacy.
But it can easily happen that sceptics or people willing to convert, and yes, even other believers put them in the situatuon without even knowing about environments like this forum.

Example: Mormon Missionarys lay out the story of the Golden Plates.(They do this at their first visit. I had them in my home.)
There is a good possibility people will ask them why Joseph Smith had to give back the Golden Plates.

"Wouldnt it be beautiful if we had them on display for everyone to see? Scientists would eat their hearts out! So where are the Golden Plates now?"

I am sure the elders come prepared for be confronted with such a question with the One Fits All answer:
"If we had the Golden Plates, everyone would be LDS. No need for faith and no free will. And that would be against gods will and plan."

I do not agree with this answer. It is illogical, and that is the fallacy I am referring.

Well, I can certainly see your point...but my thing is; we have to be careful with that one...because, while it may seem fallacious to you...it may actually be true.

Case point: My mom has this thing where she stubbornly refuses to use her credit/debit cards to make purchases.

She will only use them on extenuating circumstances.

She carries cash around her when she is out, and usually just enough cash she needs to purchase whatever she needs to purchase.

She and I have had enough discussions about this, as I point out to her the conveniences of the plastic relative to cash.

But she ain't trying to hear me...she is stuck in her ways.

Now, I said that to say...imagine there is a scenario which involves her (whatever situation it is), where a third party is tempted to ask "Well, why didn't she just use her card?".

Answer: Well, because using her card wasn't part of her plan(s).

Now, that answer is a similar to the one the LDS would give you as it pertains to the Golden Plates...and similar to the one believers typically use...a fancy pancy way of saying "we don't just don't know".

That answer may not be acceptable to you, but keep in mind, it isn't as if they are reaching with such an answer.

The Bible is clear that God requires faith...God LOVES faith...and one of the the best examples of this is when Jesus said to doubting Thomas.

"You seen, therefore you believe; blessed are those who have no seen, and still believe" (John 20:28-29).

If I recall, it was you who brought up Paul and his road to Damascus experience (in another conversation).

Jesus' point was (ibid); as good as we think Paul's experience/conversion was, we are still more blessed than Paul was, because we have no such experience, and we STILL believe.

Didn't mean to get too preachy, but trying to drive home to point.

Thank you for elaborating your point, but you misunderstood my point.
It wasnt the need for faith I was calling fallacy. Thats a matter of religion.
I called the generalizing of human reaction fallacious, when stated "Golden Plates found/Witnesses for resurrection et cetera would make everybody into a believer /mormon".
As well ist the generalizing fallacious that better evidence would help no one believe.

For staying with the mormon example: If you open tomorrows newspaper and read that the golden plates were found and are on exhibition in a museum, would that make you instantly longing for a baptizing in LDS temple?
Even if you answer this with a big "Yes", you might see that not everyone would react thus!

And still too many complications for most people. Where are the ruins of Zarahemla? The Elepant bones? Why is reformed egyptian not better known?

[The Nice Centurion]

I disagree partly. Of course believers will normally not bring themselves willingly into a position where they have to retreat to this fallacy.
But it can easily happen that sceptics or people willing to convert, and yes, even other believers put them in the situatuon without even knowing about environments like this forum.

Example: Mormon Missionarys lay out the story of the Golden Plates.(They do this at their first visit. I had them in my home.)
There is a good possibility people will ask them why Joseph Smith had to give back the Golden Plates.

"Wouldnt it be beautiful if we had them on display for everyone to see? Scientists would eat their hearts out! So where are the Golden Plates now?"

I am sure the elders come prepared for be confronted with such a question with the One Fits All answer:
"If we had the Golden Plates, everyone would be LDS. No need for faith and no free will. And that would be against gods will and plan."

I do not agree with this answer. It is illogical, and that is the fallacy I am referring.

Well, I can certainly see your point...but my thing is; we have to be careful with that one...because, while it may seem fallacious to you...it may actually be true.

Case point: My mom has this thing where she stubbornly refuses to use her credit/debit cards to make purchases.

She will only use them on extenuating circumstances.

She carries cash around her when she is out, and usually just enough cash she needs to purchase whatever she needs to purchase.

She and I have had enough discussions about this, as I point out to her the conveniences of the plastic relative to cash.

But she ain't trying to hear me...she is stuck in her ways.

Now, I said that to say...imagine there is a scenario which involves her (whatever situation it is), where a third party is tempted to ask "Well, why didn't she just use her card?".

Answer: Well, because using her card wasn't part of her plan(s).

Now, that answer is a similar to the one the LDS would give you as it pertains to the Golden Plates...and similar to the one believers typically use...a fancy pancy way of saying "we don't just don't know".

That answer may not be acceptable to you, but keep in mind, it isn't as if they are reaching with such an answer.

Mormons Leaders also answered the question about why women may have no part in leadership with: "It isnt gods plan!"

I am pretty sure some while in the past slaveholders also countered inquirys about their captive negros with: "It is gods plan for them to be slaves!"

The answer is pretty unsubstantial and suspicious. It looks like convenient evil hiding clumsily behind religion!

( Your mother, if asked why not she used her card, should just pretend to be allergic against plastic ! )

[The Nice Centurion]

I like this "rock and a hard place" thingy.

While I am hesitant to call it a fallacy, there is some merit to it as just simply being in a compromising situation, which is what it means in general...but even believers can find ourselves in these situations.

Here is one that I noticed on my end...I am about to give two scenarios, watch this..

*I present the Gospels to a person who knows nothing about it, with the suggestion that after he reads them, he believes what he reads*.

The person reads it, and comes back...

Scenario 1

Person: I read those four books as you suggested.

Me: That's what's up. Now, do you believe?

Person: Nawww man. I don't think I can get down with it.

Me: Why?

Person: Because, after reading them..I noticed that three of the four are too similar. It is almost as if there is some plagiarizing stuff going on there. I can't rock with plagiarism.

*Person walks away*

Scenario 2:

The person reads it, and comes back...

Person: I read those four books as you suggested.

Me: That's what's up. Now, do you believe?

Person: Nawww man. I don't think I can get down with it.

Me: Why?

Person: Because after reading them, I noticed that there are too many differences. Almost seem as if the accounts are all contradictory. I can't rock with contradictory stuff.

*Person walks away*

So, on one hand, it is rejected because they are too similar.

On the other hand, it is rejected because they are too different.

So, the believer is stuck between a rock and a hard place.



--------

Yes, thank you, but your scenario is heavily different from mine.
Fistly, I would hope, it is very seldom that an apologetic is sure to convert people just by urging them to read the gospels.
And afterwards to bluntly ask: "Do you now believe?" is clumsy at best. Some apologetic.
Gospels can be theologically bended beyond recognition. No one can say what a layman makes of it.

But even without this complications sceptics would have not two, but all kinds of reasons to reject belief:

Because the gospels sound too fabulous, because it takes place too long ago to be thurougly researched, because there are no witnesses mentioned for the actual resurrection et cetera

So in your scenario we have a rather uncommon situation that can be resolved in lots of ways.

In mine we have a rather common situation (someone asking for better evidence) and a classic dodging to one of two certain fallacys.

[bjs1]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #1]

No, that is not a fallacy. A fallacy involves inherently poor reasoning. For instance, saying “hard evidence is not given, for that would ruin free will and ruin the need for faith” is not inherently false. That could be false, but it is also possible for it be true. A statement simply being wrong is not the same thing a logical fallacy.

I will add that there may be a fallacy on the part of the skeptic in this approach towards believers. The question appears to rely on the fallacy of ambiguity. The questioner in this case requests “hard evidence.” But what qualifies as hard evidence? That seems subjective. The believer might consider the available evidence as “hard evidence,” while the questioner does not.

We see a similar fallacy in phrases like “Extreme claims require extreme evidence.” Who decides which claims are extreme? Does any claim that doesn’t fit my existing worldview count as “extreme?” And at what point does evidence become “extreme” or “hard” evidence? Too often this relies on the questioner finding out what evidence the believer does not have, and then setting that as the bar for “hard” or “extreme” evidence.

I suppose the questioner could get around that fallacy by provided hard evidence for a materialistic worldview so that a clear standard could be set, removing ambiguity, but without that the request for “hard evidence” is too vague to be useful.

[TRANSPONDER]

No, this leads back to your repeated, and unsupported, claim that unbelievers are obsessed with God.
Tcg

All I know is; I don't spend years of my life justifying my insistence on discussing things I don't believe in.

When people do things like that; there is something else there besides mere curiosity.

I call it obsession, you can call it whatever you want.

Things people like or choose to do may be called an 'obsession', perhaps. But it's the same with those who put their lifespans and millions of dollars into disproving evolution in the mistaken idea that, if they do, it proves Biblegod. But to help you out a bit, the reason we are here is not because of what we don't believe, but because of what we do.

[TRANSPONDER]

I disagree partly. Of course believers will normally not bring themselves willingly into a position where they have to retreat to this fallacy.
But it can easily happen that sceptics or people willing to convert, and yes, even other believers put them in the situatuon without even knowing about environments like this forum.

Example: Mormon Missionarys lay out the story of the Golden Plates.(They do this at their first visit. I had them in my home.)
There is a good possibility people will ask them why Joseph Smith had to give back the Golden Plates.

"Wouldnt it be beautiful if we had them on display for everyone to see? Scientists would eat their hearts out! So where are the Golden Plates now?"

I am sure the elders come prepared for be confronted with such a question with the One Fits All answer:
"If we had the Golden Plates, everyone would be LDS. No need for faith and no free will. And that would be against gods will and plan."

I do not agree with this answer. It is illogical, and that is the fallacy I am referring.

Well, I can certainly see your point...but my thing is; we have to be careful with that one...because, while it may seem fallacious to you...it may actually be true.

Case point: My mom has this thing where she stubbornly refuses to use her credit/debit cards to make purchases.

She will only use them on extenuating circumstances.

She carries cash around her when she is out, and usually just enough cash she needs to purchase whatever she needs to purchase.

She and I have had enough discussions about this, as I point out to her the conveniences of the plastic relative to cash.

But she ain't trying to hear me...she is stuck in her ways.

Now, I said that to say...imagine there is a scenario which involves her (whatever situation it is), where a third party is tempted to ask "Well, why didn't she just use her card?".

Answer: Well, because using her card wasn't part of her plan(s).

Now, that answer is a similar to the one the LDS would give you as it pertains to the Golden Plates...and similar to the one believers typically use...a fancy pancy way of saying "we don't just don't know".

That answer may not be acceptable to you, but keep in mind, it isn't as if they are reaching with such an answer.

The Bible is clear that God requires faith...God LOVES faith...and one of the the best examples of this is when Jesus said to doubting Thomas.

"You seen, therefore you believe; blessed are those who have no seen, and still believe" (John 20:28-29).

If I recall, it was you who brought up Paul and his road to Damascus experience (in another conversation).

Jesus' point was (ibid); as good as we think Paul's experience/conversion was, we are still more blessed than Paul was, because we have no such experience, and we STILL believe.

Didn't mean to get too preachy, but trying to drive home to point.

For one: The Golden Plates found would rather be an anachronism than a reason for everyone to become mormon, much less LDS.
But LDS of course likes to present itself as the only mormon church.

I got beef with the LDS.

Now, I agree there are questions in belief, that are less obvious and come less often.

Someone inquiring about "actual witnesses for the resurrection" is really best served in an environment like this forum.
viewtopic.php?t=27092

But christians have to watch out, out there too to be possibly prepared for that dangerous question!

I like this "rock and a hard place" thingy.

While I am hesitant to call it a fallacy, there is some merit to it as just simply being in a compromising situation, which is what it means in general...but even believers can find ourselves in these situations.

Here is one that I noticed on my end...I am about to give two scenarios, watch this..

*I present the Gospels to a person who knows nothing about it, with the suggestion that after he reads them, he believes what he reads*.

The person reads it, and comes back...

Scenario 1

Person: I read those four books as you suggested.

Me: That's what's up. Now, do you believe?

Person: Nawww man. I don't think I can get down with it.

Me: Why?

Person: Because, after reading them..I noticed that three of the four are too similar. It is almost as if there is some plagiarizing stuff going on there. I can't rock with plagiarism.

*Person walks away*

Scenario 2:

The person reads it, and comes back...

Person: I read those four books as you suggested.

Me: That's what's up. Now, do you believe?

Person: Nawww man. I don't think I can get down with it.

Me: Why?

Person: Because after reading them, I noticed that there are too many differences. Almost seem as if the accounts are all contradictory. I can't rock with contradictory stuff.

*Person walks away*

So, on one hand, it is rejected because they are too similar.

On the other hand, it is rejected because they are too different.

So, the believer is stuck between a rock and a hard place.



--------

And on another note (off topic)..

There was this now defunct website called "Best Gore", which featured a lot of pictures and videos of murders, death, gore, etc.

It gave you a steady dose of some of the most harsh realities of the evil world that we live in.

And below every picture/video, members of the website could make comments.

Anyway, there was one picture of an unfortunate victim of a homicide.

The dude had his head smashed with a big boulder/rock.

The rock laid at rest on the man's smashed head.

Someone left a comment which stated..

"This dude is stuck between a rock and a dead place".

The comment is/was so funny and relevant, that I would laugh at the comment..even if I was the victim!!!

There again, I don't know whether it's a fallacy ir not, but it's certainly a canard of the two conclusions about the gospels - 1 that they are based on a common story, which may or may not be true, but also that the synoptics show signs of being based on an original common tyext as they not only say the same thing, but say it the same way. Like they were copying.

2 The contradictions they introduce flag up their individual additions to this common text or indeed, original basic story.

If you do not understand (ore do not want to understand) this and prefer to present it as some kind of 'heads we win, tails the Bible loses' fiddle like 'if the gospels agree, they must have copied each other and if they write differently they must be making it up'. No that's not the way it works, and all we can do is explain the way it actually works.

[TRANSPONDER]

I like this "rock and a hard place" thingy.

While I am hesitant to call it a fallacy, there is some merit to it as just simply being in a compromising situation, which is what it means in general...but even believers can find ourselves in these situations.

Here is one that I noticed on my end...I am about to give two scenarios, watch this..

*I present the Gospels to a person who knows nothing about it, with the suggestion that after he reads them, he believes what he reads*.

The person reads it, and comes back...

Scenario 1

Person: I read those four books as you suggested.

Me: That's what's up. Now, do you believe?

Person: Nawww man. I don't think I can get down with it.

Me: Why?

Person: Because, after reading them..I noticed that three of the four are too similar. It is almost as if there is some plagiarizing stuff going on there. I can't rock with plagiarism.

*Person walks away*

Scenario 2:

The person reads it, and comes back...

Person: I read those four books as you suggested.

Me: That's what's up. Now, do you believe?

Person: Nawww man. I don't think I can get down with it.

Me: Why?

Person: Because after reading them, I noticed that there are too many differences. Almost seem as if the accounts are all contradictory. I can't rock with contradictory stuff.

*Person walks away*

So, on one hand, it is rejected because they are too similar.

On the other hand, it is rejected because they are too different.

So, the believer is stuck between a rock and a hard place.



--------

Yes, thank you, but your scenario is heavily different from mine.
Fistly, I would hope, it is very seldom that an apologetic is sure to convert people just by urging them to read the gospels.
And afterwards to bluntly ask: "Do you now believe?" is clumsy at best. Some apologetic.
Gospels can be theologically bended beyond recognition. No one can say what a layman makes of it.

But even without this complications sceptics would have not two, but all kinds of reasons to reject belief:

Because the gospels sound too fabulous, because it takes place too long ago to be thurougly researched, because there are no witnesses mentioned for the actual resurrection et cetera

So in your scenario we have a rather uncommon situation that can be resolved in lots of ways.

In mine we have a rather common situation (someone asking for better evidence) and a classic dodging to one of two certain fallacys.

It has been consistently noted in many deconversion stories that the two main deconverters are the problem of Evil and Really reading the Bible.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #1]

No, that is not a fallacy. A fallacy involves inherently poor reasoning. For instance, saying “hard evidence is not given, for that would ruin free will and ruin the need for faith” is not inherently false. That could be false, but it is also possible for it be true. A statement simply being wrong is not the same thing a logical fallacy.

Again, the apologets poor reasoning I see in the generalizing of the reaction of sceptics. That all people would become believers, or that no one would become a believer with better evidence are both poor reasoning and therefore fallacys.

I will add that there may be a fallacy on the part of the skeptic in this approach towards believers. The question appears to rely on the fallacy of ambiguity. The questioner in this case requests “hard evidence.” But what qualifies as hard evidence? That seems subjective. The believer might consider the available evidence as “hard evidence,” while the questioner does not.

You might be on to something here. Might be better to insert here: "better/more complex evidence".
What is hard evidence might be seen as always subjective.
Still evidence for miracles always seems to resemble photographys and storys of supposedly nonexistent anymals: Always blurry.
The man who led an expedition into congo to film the dinosaur, sweared he encountered many dinosaurs playing in a lake. He filmed them, but forgot to take of the camera lense shutter.
Next time he told his story the camera lense shutter was never a problem, but the poor man insisted he forget to insert a film roll.
Is it that bad for a sceptic to ask here for better evidence?
No, I see no fallacy here on the side of the sceptic.
And of course, if the dinosaur seeker wants to risk some good laughs he could say: "This evidence is hard enough. "See, I still carry around this camera without filmroll . . . err I mean with still on camera lens shutter . . . err whatever suits you better to believe me! Is this no evidence?"
(But of course, since it is no religios matter he would be badly advised to use the ROCK AND HARD PLACE FALLACY!)

We see a similar fallacy in phrases like “Extreme claims require extreme evidence.” Who decides which claims are extreme? Does any claim that doesn’t fit my existing worldview count as “extreme?” And at what point does evidence become “extreme” or “hard” evidence? Too often this relies on the questioner finding out what evidence the believer does not have, and then setting that as the bar for “hard” or “extreme” evidence.

I suppose the questioner could get around that fallacy by provided hard evidence for a materialistic worldview so that a clear standard could be set, removing ambiguity, but without that the request for “hard evidence” is too vague to be useful.

Again it might be better to use the term "better evidence", but where you are wrong is that no one can earnestly differ between extreme and non extreme storys. "A jewish Zombie who is his own father raised without actual witnesses from the dead, played peekabue in his new different body to his closest friends and flew away into Space toward planet Romulus to attack the romulan Homeworld for misguided revenge on the romans." is more extreme than:"I got up this morning and ate breakfast." !

[bjs1]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #1]

No, that is not a fallacy. A fallacy involves inherently poor reasoning. For instance, saying “hard evidence is not given, for that would ruin free will and ruin the need for faith” is not inherently false. That could be false, but it is also possible for it be true. A statement simply being wrong is not the same thing a logical fallacy.

Again, the apologets poor reasoning I see in the generalizing of the reaction of sceptics. That all people would become believers, or that no one would become a believer with better evidence are both poor reasoning and therefore fallacys.

Okay, but a calling something a fallacy doesn’t just mean that there is poor reasoning. A fallacy explains how the reasoning is poor. I’m not saying that either reasoning is right, just that it’s not the same thing as being a fallacy.

I will add that there may be a fallacy on the part of the skeptic in this approach towards believers. The question appears to rely on the fallacy of ambiguity. The questioner in this case requests “hard evidence.” But what qualifies as hard evidence? That seems subjective. The believer might consider the available evidence as “hard evidence,” while the questioner does not.

You might be on to something here. Might be better to insert here: "better/more complex evidence".
What is hard evidence might be seen as always subjective.
Still evidence for miracles always seems to resemble photographys and storys of supposedly nonexistent anymals: Always blurry.
The man who led an expedition into congo to film the dinosaur, sweared he encountered many dinosaurs playing in a lake. He filmed them, but forgot to take of the camera lense shutter.
Next time he told his story the camera lense shutter was never a problem, but the poor man insisted he forget to insert a film roll.
Is it that bad for a sceptic to ask here for better evidence?
No, I see no fallacy here on the side of the sceptic.
And of course, if the dinosaur seeker wants to risk some good laughs he could say: "This evidence is hard enough. "See, I still carry around this camera without filmroll . . . err I mean with still on camera lens shutter . . . err whatever suits you better to believe me! Is this no evidence?"
(But of course, since it is no religios matter he would be badly advised to use the ROCK AND HARD PLACE FALLACY!)

This doesn’t remove the problem. “Better/more complex” is still ambiguous. How much better? Who decides when an argument or evidence is complex enough? This still seems like an effort to allow the questioner to set the standard of evidence based on what s/he knows the believer doesn’t have. That is, it is an argument designed to maintain a position instead of find the truth.

We see a similar fallacy in phrases like “Extreme claims require extreme evidence.” Who decides which claims are extreme? Does any claim that doesn’t fit my existing worldview count as “extreme?” And at what point does evidence become “extreme” or “hard” evidence? Too often this relies on the questioner finding out what evidence the believer does not have, and then setting that as the bar for “hard” or “extreme” evidence.

I suppose the questioner could get around that fallacy by provided hard evidence for a materialistic worldview so that a clear standard could be set, removing ambiguity, but without that the request for “hard evidence” is too vague to be useful.

Again it might be better to use the term "better evidence", but where you are wrong is that no one can earnestly differ between extreme and non extreme storys. "A jewish Zombie who is his own father raised without actual witnesses from the dead, played peekabue in his new different body to his closest friends and flew away into Space toward planet Romulus to attack the romulan Homeworld for misguided revenge on the romans." is more extreme than:"I got up this morning and ate breakfast." !

I agree that the first example is more extreme than the latter one. What if we start comparing something closer to the actual claims people might debate? For instance, is it more extreme to say, “It is a good use of time to pray” or to say “It is not a good use of time to pray”? Without assuming a pre-existing position is accurate, which of these claims would be extreme?